I believe you are telling me l cannot prove God exists. — SnoringKitten
Please can you tackle my arguments. — SnoringKitten
You are not tackling my points. — SnoringKitten
I believe it's contradictory because in my scheme:
Agnosticism = either way, l cannot decide, though l've tried to
Atheism = I've considered the options, and l bear witness that there is no God
Thus there is a contradiction in bringing the two together — SnoringKitten
What can else can there be: God exists, God does not exist. What other stable option is there? — SnoringKitten
Sorry, i've really tried to understand you, but l cannot due to either something being left out of your sentences and/or the sentence structure. — SnoringKitten
Hi there,
I believe my redefinitions are anything but vicious, l have explained their merits, i.e.:
- They encourage profession of belief after reasonable debate, because such is the re-definition
- They leave the debate ongoing
- They acknowledge that the debate is ongoing
- They acknowledge the unfalsifiability of Theism/Atheism
The existing defintions do no such thing. — SnoringKitten
Please can you tackle my arguments. — SnoringKitten
Few people wold fit your definition of atheist, because it conveys a certainty that most would consider unwarrantable. In addition, it diverges from common usage. A "theist" believes there is a god (or gods). A-theist (or atheist) is taken as the converse, so there's a clear dichotomy: everyone fits into one or the other buckets.Atheist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there definitely is no God"
Agnostic thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY the arguments are stacked perefectly equal either way, hence l stand mute on the matter"
Theist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there is a God." Note that, at least in Islam, the religious adherents are called "Believers" ("Moomins" like in the children's TV show). Thus even though Atheism / Theism are unfalsifiable, the Theist is actually defined as a Believer not a Knower and is thus right with science. — SnoringKitten
As you are causing repetition of my arguments directly given to you — SnoringKitten
re-stating your own — SnoringKitten
l shall therefore not answer your further posts. — SnoringKitten
I am NOT making random substitutions as you are in your example. — SnoringKitten
I have reasoned my redefenitions out. — SnoringKitten
What?
Let me explain again: We cannot ourselves prove that God exists or not therefore God / Atheism are unfalsifiable beliefs. That is taken for granted in all of my arguments in the OP.
Atheists claim God does not exist. Therefore Atheism is unscientific. — SnoringKitten
Again reductio ad absurdum. I have also already explained the folly in agnosticism, in a post directed to you, you have yet to counter that. You are not reading my replies. — SnoringKitten
Think of when two arguments are perfectly matched, there yet remains one's feelings on the matter. Also, as l've said, either God exists or not, there is no actual middle ground, the middle ground is only when the two camps are perfectly balanced, regarding which, l've already explained: where are a person's feelings on the matter? — SnoringKitten
I do not have any problems with your statement about the kind of atheism you uphold. — Bitter Crank
It means that I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. — S
But, at other times you've said that there' s no evidence for any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all. As long as you're only saying (as you did above) that you don't know of such evidence, then you're reasonable. — Michael Ossipoff
But, if people here have misunderstood you, it's because you've contradicted yourself. — Michael Ossipoff
But if you want to claim that science and logic rule on the validity of religious faith, then you're an evangelistic proselytizing Science-Worshipper, trying to assert the rightness of your own faith and dogma. — Michael Ossipoff
Can you understand that science and logic don't apply to the matter of faith? — Michael Ossipoff
...and that it's questionable to try to apply science and logic to the matter of Reality itself? — Michael Ossipoff
Can you just say that you don't know of evidence or any reason for faith? — Michael Ossipoff
Not enough indifference. Still treats the problem of God's existence as a legitimate question, even if answered in the negative. Only true atheism is: 'God? What's that?' 'Never head of it' 'Lets get on with it then'. Ruthless, bloody uncaring. — StreetlightX
I discount those cases whereby God is merely used as label for something that I do believe exists, such as the world. That is just wordplay - a triviality. — S
So is the quote, just above, you know. — Ciceronianus the White
But thank you for the unsolicited declaration. — Ciceronianus the White
Secretly, I've always hoped you would explain your "stance in relation to God." I was too shy to ask. — Ciceronianus the White
Re: strong & weak atheism: you see this is what l'm talking about. It crushes everything and puts it all on the same plane, whereas my system separates the arguments - which are many and complex - from the current lip profession. The current lip profession of a person is what makes them Atheist or Theist or even Agnostic. Simple, elegant. — SnoringKitten
Re: agnosticism = the knowability of God, maybe that is the current definition but it is erratic because:
- the debate about the knowability of God won't exist without the person giving the views lip service — SnoringKitten
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.